Cogswell Interchange

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

The decisions made in the 1950s and 60s have no interest for me. I want to look at where we are now, and start addressing the problems we see now with solutions from this century.

A city of Halifax staff person who started work the year the MacDonald Bridge was built, say as a 22 year old, retired in 1998. How can we look at the Artz street issue and say that symbolizes Halifax today, when the modernization project that saw the Barrington on ramp built was built in 1999, almost 15 years ago? That is who we are now, people who solve the problems we inherited from the past.

With all respect, best practices around the world now show the value and tax lift obtained by getting rid of antiquated highway style drives like this, not just in big cities but in small ones.

I hear the same thing from the Heritage Trust folks, who also have the unfortunate tendency to bring up tragedies of planning departments past as if the battle is still being fought.

Cogswell lands will be marvellous, and the possibility of a new Police HQ 10-15 years from now means we could have some great new infill on that block too, I see downtown and the North End knit back together into a walkable, drivable, cohesive whole.

Agreed. However, there were some interesting solutions presented back in the 1960's such as a North West Arm bridge. A North West Arm bridge would get truck traffic off downtown streets if a route above the railcut is used to connect to the downtown and Marginal Road.

Is a North West Arm a taboo subject? It seems like politicians are afraid to even mention it. When looking at a map, a North West Arm bridge appears to have so many benefits - it would open up western Halifax to growth and get trucks out of the downtown.

In any case, I am no longer a resident so my thought are just as an interested outsider.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

That's just great. Now that we are on top of things and looking ahead to the future when can we expect a stadium? Will it be a priority over a new police station?

Not so fast. Council must debate whether either structure will have "affordable housing" in it, and whether there is an active transportation component.

(We badly need a "buzzword" smilie)

Coun. Mason, my point is that the pattern in HRM is to never address traffic issues unless it to make them worse. I used Artz St as an example but the list of ongoing problem areas that have remained unaddressed is as long as you wish to make it. For all its obvious issues, the interchange does one thing well - it allows traffic flow. I will be anxious to see how the replacement handles the grade on Cogswell for example, and how any intersections are controlled. My expectation is that the replacement will, indeed, make matters worse.

[Antigonish]

I agree Keith. These plans that have been posted all look to be downgrading the capacity of the intersection. If anything traffic will always increase even with better transit. I'm skeptical demolishing the interchange too soon will screw everything up.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

I agree Keith. These plans that have been posted all look to be downgrading the capacity of the intersection. If anything traffic will always increase even with better transit. I'm skeptical demolishing the interchange too soon will screw everything up.

I don't think that focusing on car traffic makes much sense downtown. It is a very densely built up district with a road network that pre-dates cars and suburbia. There is no good way to add sufficient road capacity and parking to this area to allow everybody to drive to their office jobs.

Cities like New York, Toronto, or Calgary don't handle growing transportation needs by adding lanes for cars downtown. They simply don't have the space. Instead, they have built better transit systems capable of carrying a vastly larger number of commuters in a much smaller space. This is related to a scale issue that happens as cities grow; surface streets (and buses) become less and less worthwhile and viable. Halifax is just starting to run into this wall.

Downtown Halifax doesn't need more road capacity as such. It needs more transportation capacity in the same amount of space. There would also be great benefits to getting loud, dirty diesel buses off of downtown streets. Similarly there will be great benefits to opening up several acres of valuable development land around Cogswell, which currently is about as much grass berm as it is vehicle lanes. This is not an efficient use of downtown land: http://goo.gl/maps/PkAnf

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by someone123

Downtown Halifax doesn't need more road capacity as such. It needs more transportation capacity in the same amount of space. There would also be great benefits to getting loud, dirty diesel buses off of downtown streets. Similarly there will be great benefits to opening up several acres of valuable development land around Cogswell, which currently is about as much grass berm as it is vehicle lanes. This is not an efficient use of downtown land: http://goo.gl/maps/PkAnf

But what about the the truck traffic? It would be best for Halterm to continue to grow.

One recent idea was to have an inland terminal for trucks and CN would transfer the containers for truck pickup to that terminal. However, CN would then have a complete monopoly at the Halterm terminal - trucks wouldn't have the option of loading containers directly at the terminal.

Other than the truck traffic, I agreed with what you have stated. I think it is time for an electric shuttle service (either BRT with electric buses or LRT) in the downtown core that would link to transit terminals and parking sites outside of the downtown core.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

But what about the the truck traffic? It would be best for Halterm to continue to grow.

One recent idea was to have an inland terminal for trucks and CN would transfer the containers for truck pickup to that terminal. However, CN would then have a complete monopoly at the Halterm terminal - trucks wouldn't have the option of loading containers directly at the terminal.

Other than the truck traffic, I agreed with what you have stated. I think it is time for an automated, electric shuttle service (either BRT with electric buses or LRT) in the downtown core that would link to transit terminals and parking sites outside of the downtown core.

The truck traffic should go over a third crossing or through the rail cut then over a Northwest Arm bridge. It should not be going through the downtown core.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't think that focusing on car traffic makes much sense downtown. It is a very densely built up district with a road network that pre-dates cars and suburbia. There is no good way to add sufficient road capacity and parking to this area to allow everybody to drive to their office jobs.

Cities like New York, Toronto, or Calgary don't handle growing transportation needs by adding lanes for cars downtown. They simply don't have the space. Instead, they have built better transit systems capable of carrying a vastly larger number of commuters in a much smaller space. This is related to a scale issue that happens as cities grow; surface streets (and buses) become less and less worthwhile and viable. Halifax is just starting to run into this wall.

Downtown Halifax doesn't need more road capacity as such. It needs more transportation capacity in the same amount of space. There would also be great benefits to getting loud, dirty diesel buses off of downtown streets. Similarly there will be great benefits to opening up several acres of valuable development land around Cogswell, which currently is about as much grass berm as it is vehicle lanes. This is not an efficient use of downtown land: http://goo.gl/maps/PkAnf

It is fine to compare Halifax to Toronto but Toronto has a basic road network, and Halifax does not have a sufficient network on the peninsula. I think Bayers Rd needs to be expanded, as does Robie St need to widened. I could see Chebucto/Cunard also receiving upgrade, Barrington from downtown to the north bridge is inadequate and a bridge needs to cross the Arm as well as a third harbor crossing. Without a minimum level of traffic flow we are stifling business and development.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

It is fine to compare Halifax to Toronto but Toronto has a basic road network, and Halifax does not have a sufficient network on the peninsula. I think Bayers Rd needs to be expanded, as does Robie St need to widened. I could see Chebucto/Cunard also receiving upgrade, Barrington from downtown to the north bridge is inadequate and a bridge needs to cross the Arm as well as a third harbor crossing. Without a minimum level of traffic flow we are stifling business and development.

Maybe, but Toronto's road network feels more burdened and congested than Halifax's. To say nothing, as Someone123 did, of NYC's, which is far more inadequate for the population than Halifax's, if we're looking at population vs. road capacity. Consider: Manhattan has 2 million people, and, at its widest, only 14 avenues going up and downtown. It works only because enough people walk and bike, and a great transit system serves the city. And EVEN still, the streets are constantly congested. Trying to attain free-flowing traffic through the centre of a densely populated city is impossible--you'll always need one more lane.

Robie Street could get a lane, I guess, by removing the centre median. But parts of Robie are residential, and removing the median--and the big trees it provides--would turn the street in front of a lot of people's houses into a really unpleasant six-lane thoroughfare. I don't see how Chebucto could be widened without chewing up a lot of front yards or straight-up expropriation.

Road widening shouldn't be off the table altogether, but improving transit and creating more areas where people don't need to get in a car for basic errands, etc., is vastly preferable.

We do need another crossing off the peninsula, though. Bottleneck city, there.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

It is fine to compare Halifax to Toronto but Toronto has a basic road network, and Halifax does not have a sufficient network on the peninsula. I think Bayers Rd needs to be expanded, as does Robie St need to widened. I could see Chebucto/Cunard also receiving upgrade, Barrington from downtown to the north bridge is inadequate and a bridge needs to cross the Arm as well as a third harbor crossing. Without a minimum level of traffic flow we are stifling business and development.

I'm glad this is getting some traction, as I have been saying this for years. You hit the main spots except for North St, which seems to be a lost cause given that the city has allowed development to the sidewalk along there.

The stretch of Robie that needs to be widened is from Almon to Cunard. Cunard/Chebucto could definitely use and upgrade as well as you indicate and as was called for in the city plan of 1945. The north end of Barrington as it connects to the MacKay is a joke, almost like a construction road for the bridge that was merely paved upon construction being finished, rather than a proper artery into the city.

[ILoveHalifax]

I was referring to the section of Robie that narrows to 2.5 lanes.

There are many roads in Toronto that have not gotten any wider in the last 50 years, so they have a certain standard 2 lanes in each direction that seems to work with 4 or 5 million more people in the area, Yonge St, Bloor/Danforth and many others. I think we need to meet those same minimum standards.

[ILoveHalifax]

Yes, Keith,

That section of Barrington from the north bridge to Cogswell is really embarrasing. For a main route into the city it sure looks bad.

[Hali87]

I think the CBC forum was altogether pretty promising. Lots of progressive ideas, and an acknowledgement that all of them won't necessarily be implemented. General enthusiasm for (underground?) rapid transit, the idea of having rooftop green space seems like a no brainer, and there was a sense that most of those present "got" that the more things that are to go on the site, the larger the buildings will have to be as a result. It also exposed some of the more foolish dogmas (for example A. Ruffman's false dichotomy of density "or" affordability as opposing concepts). I'm pretty interested to see what Andy Fillmore will be able to bring to the table, as well.

[halifaxboyns]

I realize that many don't seem to understand the whole idea of 'downsizing roads' and that it will lead to traffic anarchy - but it's actually been proven to be actually quite the opposite. This gets back to the age old saying that you can't build yourself out of traffic congestion - build more lanes, they fill up. Well the opposite has actually been found to apply as well.

A great example was Seoul prior to the olympics. A major traffic artery through through the city was an elevated roadway; which had all but destroyed an old stream (or at least covered it up and severely cut back it's flow). Overtime, several people suggested removing the road and restoring the stream. As time passed, that call got louder and louder and eventually they did just that - removed the road and restored the stream. The people against the project felt that traffic would be pure gridlock - but after the work was done, traffic wasn't bad it was in fact normal, little to no change. People found alternate routes - life did not end.

We can't plan for a point that there are no cars - but we can plan for the day that the use of the car is not the primary mode. Let's face it, much of the use of the car is discretionary. When I drive - do I really need to? The answer (for me) is frankly - no. I could easily have walked or taken the train, but I chose to drive because my car is great on gas (gold old TDI - 1100km/tank) and the price of gas here is quite low. But when the day comes that oil hits 200$/barrel (or more) - will people be driving like that? Will people just jump into the car? I'd say no, when they have access to reliable high frequency public transit, or better yet - we have planned where they lived to be walkable, with all the services they need in an easy walk.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

build more lanes, they fill up. Well the opposite has actually been found to apply as well.

A great example was Seoul prior to the olympics. A major traffic artery through through the city was an elevated roadway; which had all but destroyed an old stream (or at least covered it up and severely cut back it's flow). Overtime, several people suggested removing the road and restoring the stream. As time passed, that call got louder and louder and eventually they did just that - removed the road and restored the stream. The people against the project felt that traffic would be pure gridlock - but after the work was done, traffic wasn't bad it was in fact normal, little to no change. People found alternate routes - life did not end.

Another example--L.A. shut down a 10-mile stretch of Interstate 405 (ironically, for widening) last year, at the same time as a triathlon shut down a smaller arterial elsewhere in the city. The much anticipated "carmageddon" turned into...slightly greater than normal traffic on other streets. No big deal.

Likewise, when San Francisco's Embarcardero freeway collapsed in the 1989 earthquake, the city opted not to rebuild it, instead replacing it with a ground-level, lower capacity road. The end result, traffic-wise? No big deal.

When Toronto demolished the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway in 2001, there were predictions of traffic backed up for kilometres on Lake Shore Boulevard. Did it happen? No.

It seems paradoxical, but history bears it out--more lanes don't necessarily reduce traffic congestion, and in fact, often increase it. Which isn't to say we should run around tearing out traffic lanes and turn the whole city into a pedestrian nirvana, but we should definitely think twice about adding lanes. The logical equation (more road capacity=less gridlock) isn't necessarily true.

[halifaxboyns]

Where I think some of my fellow planners (not necessarily in Halifax, but just in general) seem to go too far is to think about getting rid of the car altogether, which isn't going to happen. But if we can decrease the amount of car use (even 50%), we are that much better for it. The only risk with that is that by removing those cars, how do we prevent or limit even more cars from coming back and taking the place of those removed?

That's where road pricing comes in - which is something even people in Toronto are thinking about as a means to reduce congestion and improve $ to transit. I don't have an answer for the second part; at least not yet. But I'm sure there are smarter people out there than I!

My goal (personally) would be to see a vastly improved (and substantially busier) public transit system that includes high speed ferry, LRT, streetcar as well as bus rapid transit and conventional transit. If we can include those modes through other road projects (such as a 3rd harbour crossing and NW Arm Crossing - which may allow an LRT/streetcar tunnel as part) - then great. But if there is no interest in that; then they should not proceed until the money can be found to facilitate multi-mode, because to just build for cars is not helpful.

[ILoveHalifax]

When they added lanes to the 111 and took out the MicMac Rotary the traffic problem totally disappeared. Just one example where adding more lanes solved a problem.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

But if we can decrease the amount of car use (even 50%), we are that much better for it.

There's too much black and white thinking about transportation. The idea of "cars vs. cyclists/pedestrians/transit" doesn't even make sense -- one person might use their car for certain types of trips, take transit to go to work, and bike when it's nice outside. I own a car but I only drive it once in a while. It's good for groceries for example but I am much happier taking the train at rush hour.

Some people in Halifax will always need their cars for a variety of reasons, but the city should be aiming for a better modal split with a lower % of cars and a higher % of walking, cycling, and transit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_share

This can be done by making sure that transit works for a wider varieties of trips for a larger number of people. The fact is that people in Halifax are pretty receptive to transit; when services like MetroLink are established they become enormously successful. The limiting factor right now is just that the service levels aren't there.

I don't have anything against road projects per se, but there are limited opportunities for improvements in older, busier parts of the cities. Bayers Road makes sense, but Robie Street would be difficult to widen. Widening North Street would require expropriating a huge number of properties, kicking people out of their homes, and causing damage to the neighbourhood. It's hard to see why the city would look at solutions like that before putting in fairly basic improvements to transit, and I don't believe that road projects by themselves can provide a solution to transportation problems on the peninsula over the medium or long term.

I also think that decisions about how and where to develop new housing and employment areas make a bigger difference to transportation than road widening can. A big part of the reason why so many people need to do so much driving is that the city keeps allowing poorly-planned suburban areas with poor transit service. A lot of this development could be shifted to the urban core, lessening the need for road building.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

When they added lanes to the 111 and took out the MicMac Rotary the traffic problem totally disappeared. Just one example where adding more lanes solved a problem.

Yes, the tired argument that adding road capacity INCREASES volume is an example of planning theory dogma that ignores other relevant factors. Those factors include shifting of volume from other routes, decreasing congestion there; making areas served more attractive for development, leading to increased population and services in the area served; and offering a more attractive/efficient proposition to the driver. These are seldom mentioned of course when one's starting position is that better roads are a bad thing.

The other examples cited are in areas where there are numerous alternate route choices available. This is really not the case for the interchange unless you want to shortcut through residential areas to avoid the problem. Plus the examples cited of alternatives like walking, cycling, transit, etc. totally ignore the large volume of heavy truck traffic downtown due to Halterm and other commercial uses. While it is all well and good to say that a light rail solution could get rid of cars, it needs to be balanced against the substantial cost and the limited number of people for whom it would actually work. If it were to terminate at either end of the downtown and require a modal change to get to and from work I expect it would not solve very many problems.

The other thing to keep in mind is that we have traffic problems already with HRM developed as it has been. These will not go away if suddenly you built residential capacity downtown of substantial size. Those houses in Bedford and Fall River and Hammonds Plains are not suddenly going to be empty. Those people will still need to get downtown to work for the most part, and the traffic they generate will not disappear if you have a bunch of megabucks condos constructed downtown. You need to handle traffic, pure and simple. Building an urban farm on the interchange lands will not help - tractors are slow and farm carts are a hazard to traffic.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Very true, Keith. I shudder every time I hear that the solution to traffic problems is to make it less convenient to drive into the downtown. While it may deter some, it will also deter many people from coming downtown to spend their money there. Seems like the same people who want to choke off cars to the downtown also whine about places like Bayers Lake and Dartmouth Crossing taking business away from downtown. Meanwhile, those who need to take their cars for whatever reason will still take their cars... problem not solved.

Unless we want to revert to a state where people no longer have personal choices we still have to rely on a bit of common sense and knowledge of human nature. Negative reinforcement rarely has a desired effect when better choices are available - so make transit a better choice, i.e. making it more convenient to take transit than to drive downtown.

That being said, I still believe that most people would prefer to drive rather than stand out in the cold/wet when the weather is really bad...

For all that think cars are going way due to rising gas prices, etc., you should be aware that the carmakers are also investigating ways to keep you mobile using other energy sources. They are not going away anytime soon.

For those who choose to be dependent on other modes of transportation, good on you, but don't feel that it is necessary to take away the rights of those who choose to have more freedom in their modes of transport. (i.e., it would be great if we could cut the "all or nothing" attitude and just try to come up with a solution which works well for everybody - the car is not the enemy, it's just a convenient way to get around. Backward thinking is the enemy).

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Negative reinforcement rarely has a desired effect when better choices are available - so make transit a better choice, i.e. making it more convenient to take transit than to drive downtown.

True.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

For those who choose to be dependent on other modes of transportation, good on you, but don't feel that it is necessary to take away the rights of those who choose to have more freedom in their modes of transport.

Okay, but the Cogswell is not a right, nor is it a driver's right to have their mode of transport privileged over others. (Although good point: most of us, at various times, are drivers, and at other times pedestrians, and at other times transit users, so "us vs. them" is a silly way to frame this discussion).

But it's inevitable that as the city grows and densifies, driving in the central part of town gets slower and less convenient (unless Halifax is somehow different from every other city in the world). So we have to compensate for that with other transportation options. Right now our infrastructure is largely a legacy of the past 50 years, in which the private automobile was considered the default mode of transport. That era is ending, and we're coming upon a time when the private car is on more equal footing with other means of getting around. That won't frustrate or deter business—it certainly hasn't made downtown Toronto or Vancouver or NYC or London less successful.

If we want to look at cities closer in size to Halifax, take the small and mid-sized U.S. cities whose downtowns are dominated by freeways and other traffic infrastructure, and compare them with the cities whose downtowns are full of tightly-gridded (even narrow) streets and attractive buildings, including a lot of refurbished historical ones. The latter are generally much more successful, even if traffic is worse.

It may be more frustrating to drive there, but at least there's something worth driving to.

So yes, we still need to accomodate private vehicles. But the Cogswell is 100% about private vehicular traffic, 0% about anything else. The balance needs to shift.